did you mean the other way round?...Notice that the stroke rate was 1.3 percent for the test group and the rate was .4 percent for the control group. About 1/3 as many strokes with the higher INR then with the lower INR.
I would agree with that, however my view on the lower INR experiment was to assuage the troubled souls of those who are "worried" about what warfarin may do ... you know ... like its rat poison right? These people imagine that reducing your dose by as much as 1mg "must be a good thing ... right"...So based on what I have seen keeping the INR around at least 2.5 probably is good policy for everyone with a mechanical valve in the aortic position. Maybe higher for the mitral position. If someone has some specific problem like bleeding GI problems then probably keeping the INR lower would make sense.
I, too, never used Zyrtec and I had a worse visual loss (3/4 of my visual horizontal field) only because my INR was Low!.... When I had the visual problems I lost half of my visual field in a horizontal fashion. ... I have never used Zyrtec.
I got that pre surgery and it was discovered I had a PFO. I think the association is becoming more well known. I was straightening up after getting stuff out of the fridge and the lower half of my visual field in the left eye blacked out for a few seconds. It was like a straight line horizontally. I thought the sides were turned up a little.I am a retinal surgeon. I deal with all sorts of retinal vascular problems. When I had the visual problems I lost half of my visual field in a horizontal fashion. There is nothing that acts like that except for a temporary occlusion of a branch retinal artery.